NEW DELHI: The Union government implemented constitutional provisions and proclamation at the Supreme Court on Wednesday to oppose giving any role to the Delhi government in the transfer and placement of officials. office, before making a last-minute plea to move the annoying issue to a larger bench.
On the final and fifth day of arguments, before the SC reserved its ruling on the dispute between the Center and the Delhi government over control of ‘services’, general counsel Tushar Mehta told a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Judges MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha that the matter is important to the governance of the national capital and so that “history may not remember us as human beings.” surrendered his nation’s capital to complete anarchy.”
He also asked the court to consider the Center’s plea to move the dispute to “an appropriate larger bench”, citing the decision of the nine-judge bench regarding the dispute between the Center -Delhi in the NDMC case. This drew strong opposition from senior supporter AM Singhvi, who argued on behalf of the Delhi government. Even the bench seems unimpressed with what it calls the new phenomenon of submitting written submissions, followed by additional submissions, followed by more written submissions. “Every day we are surprised with new written submissions,” the judges said even as they allowed SG to file new submissions on the matter being moved to a larger bench.
CJI doesn’t appreciate SG making a request for a larger bench reference. “You didn’t argue at all in the daily hearing. It would not be appropriate to raise the reference issue now,” he said.
Singhvi strongly objected to Mehta begging to be referred to a larger bench. “This is an ambush argument to delay the trial of the pressing issue. Unfortunately the plea for larger bench reference was made at the end of the five-day debate, although not even a whisper was made during the two and a half days of debate. launched on behalf of the Coalition Government,” he said.
“The fundamental issue before the Constitution bench is the question of federalism and the sharing of power between the Coalition and other voters,” he said. Can the elected government and legislature of Delhi be not trusted in the legitimate exercise of legislative and executive powers over services?”
Referring to Article 239AA, the addition in 1991 created a council while a corresponding Act created a separate Delhi government, the CJI-led bench said, “Article 239AA creates a separate Delhi government. legal fictitious that Parliament may enact legislation on all subjects of List-II (State List in Seventh Schedule) on which the Delhi Council may enact legislation. Hence, Parliament has power over the State List as far as Delhi is concerned.
Singhvi conceded and said, “Parliament can certainly pass a law to pass the law passed by the Delhi Council. I am saying so. But until Parliament passes such a law, will the Delhi government and council be barred from making legislation on topics on the State List?” He said it would be the death knell for federalism, if a parliament and an elected government were barred from exercising legislative and executive powers over the list of states, in any case not including Public order, police and land for Delhi.
“The coalition is seeking to erase the distinction between ‘Parliament’ and ‘Central Government’. Under the current plan, the Legislative Assembly of the NCT of Delhi has full power in any vacancy of a List II item. Accepting the Coalition’s arguments and upholding the inappropriate notice would effectively give the Union Government executive power over the NCT’s Legislative Assembly of Delhi. This is clearly contrary to the basic plan of Article 239AA,” he said.
On the final and fifth day of arguments, before the SC reserved its ruling on the dispute between the Center and the Delhi government over control of ‘services’, general counsel Tushar Mehta told a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Judges MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha that the matter is important to the governance of the national capital and so that “history may not remember us as human beings.” surrendered his nation’s capital to complete anarchy.”
He also asked the court to consider the Center’s plea to move the dispute to “an appropriate larger bench”, citing the decision of the nine-judge bench regarding the dispute between the Center -Delhi in the NDMC case. This drew strong opposition from senior supporter AM Singhvi, who argued on behalf of the Delhi government. Even the bench seems unimpressed with what it calls the new phenomenon of submitting written submissions, followed by additional submissions, followed by more written submissions. “Every day we are surprised with new written submissions,” the judges said even as they allowed SG to file new submissions on the matter being moved to a larger bench.
CJI doesn’t appreciate SG making a request for a larger bench reference. “You didn’t argue at all in the daily hearing. It would not be appropriate to raise the reference issue now,” he said.
Singhvi strongly objected to Mehta begging to be referred to a larger bench. “This is an ambush argument to delay the trial of the pressing issue. Unfortunately the plea for larger bench reference was made at the end of the five-day debate, although not even a whisper was made during the two and a half days of debate. launched on behalf of the Coalition Government,” he said.
“The fundamental issue before the Constitution bench is the question of federalism and the sharing of power between the Coalition and other voters,” he said. Can the elected government and legislature of Delhi be not trusted in the legitimate exercise of legislative and executive powers over services?”
Referring to Article 239AA, the addition in 1991 created a council while a corresponding Act created a separate Delhi government, the CJI-led bench said, “Article 239AA creates a separate Delhi government. legal fictitious that Parliament may enact legislation on all subjects of List-II (State List in Seventh Schedule) on which the Delhi Council may enact legislation. Hence, Parliament has power over the State List as far as Delhi is concerned.
Singhvi conceded and said, “Parliament can certainly pass a law to pass the law passed by the Delhi Council. I am saying so. But until Parliament passes such a law, will the Delhi government and council be barred from making legislation on topics on the State List?” He said it would be the death knell for federalism, if a parliament and an elected government were barred from exercising legislative and executive powers over the list of states, in any case not including Public order, police and land for Delhi.
“The coalition is seeking to erase the distinction between ‘Parliament’ and ‘Central Government’. Under the current plan, the Legislative Assembly of the NCT of Delhi has full power in any vacancy of a List II item. Accepting the Coalition’s arguments and upholding the inappropriate notice would effectively give the Union Government executive power over the NCT’s Legislative Assembly of Delhi. This is clearly contrary to the basic plan of Article 239AA,” he said.
